Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the Bill of Rights was adopted the only weapon a citizen could reasonably expect to possess was a musket. These could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. I don't know what the Founders would have thought about allowing people to have weapons that can fire 50 or more shots a minute. And that can shoot at targets accurately a mile away.
the Belton Flintlock's sole reference is in records of correspondence between Belton and the Continental Congress, his flintlock could fire 16 or 20 balls (bullets) in sixteen, ten or five seconds
What's 20 bullets in 5 seconds? 144 Rounds per minute. Not to mention the Puckle gun could fire as fast as you could crank it.
Neither case could have a sustained rate of fire of that, but really neither can any other weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
Yes we do have laws that restrict gun ownership of certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS ruled them "reasonable".
Actually they didn't they stated from the Heller decision
Quote:
. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
However the SCOTUS did not rule in any way about current federal restrictions, or really any restrictions other than the Provisions of the District of Columbia's Firearms control regulations act. That you think they did is all in your imagination. Indeed the refusal of the SCOTUS to hear the AWB in Chicago, doesn't mean that they have reaffirmed that it is a reasonable restriction, or that they agree with it. All they said is that they're not going to hear it.
I think part of the issue is that they're trying to come to consensus on how to proceed with 2nd Amendment cases in the light of Heller and McDonald. McDonald placed the 2nd Amendment as a fundamental right, AND incorporated using due process. Every other right that is determined to be fundamental, and incorporated under due process has always been evaluated by the SCOTUS under strict scrutiny. The issue right now is that I don't think that there is sufficient will in the SCOTUS to review any 2nd Amendment cases under strict scrutiny (because if they did the domino's would fall). However if they do not review the 2nd under strict scrutiny then it permits the risk that all current rights considered fundamental and also incorporated under the 14th's due process are now eligible to be reviewed under less than strict scrutiny, and I don't think that's a risk they want to take. Whichever way they jump on any future case is going to result in one of two outcomes neither of which I believe the SCOTUS wants to handle, and is attempting to permit local, state and federal governments and lower courts some time to come to grips with it themselves, before making a difficult decision that will have significant impact on the US. Either way it is a ticking time bomb, because at some point someone will bring a case that will go to the SCOTUS and will require them to make that jump.
Yes we do have laws that restrict gun ownership of certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS ruled them "reasonable".
Based on your post, I must conclude that you agree with the concept of reasonable restrictions on the second amendment, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up????
I quote you for reference......" We already have Laws that restrict the ridiculous things you mention,".
So an intelligent person would conclude that since you site the gun restrictions to defend your stance, then it's not the absolute "Shall Not Be Infringed". It boils down to a matter of degree when it comes to "What, Exactly" is considered "Reasonable". For if you site the laws on the books to support your 2nd amendment stance, then you must believe that reasonable restrictions are within the scope of the constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment.
Am I reading your post correctly? If not, give me an intelligent reading of your meaning as it pertains to "Shall Not Be Infringed", vs. Reasonable restrictions.
Thank you
BTW, I might remind those 2nd extremist advocates that anyone who is for reasonable restrictions does not necessarily want to take everyone's guns away.
Of course your reading it right. The Laws we have pertaining to Machine Guns, Bombs, Artillery, and other such weapons had Laws established for them by reasonable people and the Majority favored them, and I think the Founding Fathers where addressing the Personal Weapons used by the Militia (private citizens) along side the Regular Army. That's reasonable. These Laws where made before I had a voice, and I am bound to follow them.
What is NOT reasonable is what the anti-Gun Movement has become. They lost my support when they started wanting to ban Firearms on appearance and other ignorant reasons, to try and impose their own stupid opinions of what these firearms should be. Therefore, all bets are off. They will not have my support on any restrictions and will do anything I need to do to fight every one. Trying to Ban a weapon because it has a "Compensator" or a Heat guard on the barrel, is not my idea of reasonable and serves no purpose. Its only an indicator of what the actual Agenda is of these fools. And I don't Negotiate with Fools. Now, they can Ban whatever they like, if they get by the fights we can wage in Courts and with Politics, and I will not Comply, along with Millions of others. A Law is worthless if its not obeyed and is not enforceable. Plain and simple.
There is very simple and logical way to determine what weapons civilians can possess. If LE can justify having it so can a civilian.
There actually shouldn't be a distinction between LE and civilians. Setting LE up as a higher caste is a dangerous precedent and the road to a police state where LE become paid mercenaries to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
There actually shouldn't be a distinction between LE and civilians. Setting LE up as a higher caste is a dangerous precedent and the road to a police state where LE become paid mercenaries to protect the interests of the rich and powerful.
Actually the term Militia in the 2nd derives from English Common Law, and there is a responsibility of the Militia and the people to not just follow the law, but also enforce the law.
England had sheriffs much like America, but clearly they were inadequate since a sheriff covered a town or county. Under ECL the presumption is that the people act as law enforcement (not the police because they did not exist until at earliest 1737 when George II paid some watchmen to act as law enforcement officers). It's how even today, the people have the power of citizens arrest on detection of a crime (in some cases codified in State Statute), and how the citizenry can be conscripted into a Posse for law enforcement purposes (you cannot deputize someone who has no legal responsibility to act in that way, i.e. you cannot deputize your daughter to act on your behalf at your place of work, she has no responsibility to act in that way, similarly sheriffs/police could not deputize a person if there was not a lawful responsibility for them to act in that way).
The sole difference between citizen arrest and police arrest, is that citizens cannot detain on reasonable suspicion, but has a higher burden, requiring that the offense is committed in their presence, although felonies are interesting, a person can arrest another without the crime being committed in their presence, there must have been an offense committed. So for instance if someone admitted to you that they killed someone else, but you nor the police have any evidence that such an offense took place, you cannot legally arrest that person.
Given that responsibility, there is even in law little distinction between the police and public, nor as you state should there be.
Apparently automatic rifles, handguns and machine guns with standard capacity magazines or shots over 7 rounds were already fairly available at the time the Constitution was written. The founding fathers were keenly aware of and big fan of them - some personally even owned them. Also for all their intended purposes, cannons were included too.
Apparently automatic rifles, handguns and machine guns with standard capacity magazines or shots over 7 rounds were already fairly available at the time the Constitution was written. The founding fathers were keenly aware of and big fan of them - some personally even owned them. Also for all their intended purposes, cannons were included too.
Great post! Can't wait for the usual four here try to poke holes in the thinking that the Founders had personally not experienced any advancements in technology during their lifes.
Apparently automatic rifles, handguns and machine guns with standard capacity magazines or shots over 7 rounds were already fairly available at the time the Constitution was written. The founding fathers were keenly aware of and big fan of them - some personally even owned them. Also for all their intended purposes, cannons were included too.
The right for the PEOPLE, to keep and bare arms, is unrestricted. The government has taken upon themselves to reinterpret what they were told, so they feel justified in restricting them, unconstitutionally.
All they had to do, is get enough people to agree with them and they think they can vote our rights away, in Congress, with a Supreme Court on the government payroll, surely to put their personal perspective into it. Not what the Constitution says.
So would you like it if they sold nuclear bombs at Walmart?
you just do not understand, I believe if they can afford it and can obtain it, then Americans can buy it. without any interference from the feds or the states.
if you do not want people to buy any nukes, then make sure you have all the fissionable material not available. heck, private citizens owned ships equal to navy ships during our revolutionary war complete with all cannons and other arms on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 2nd Amendment : For Muskets Only?!
